SUJASHA MUKHERJI versus THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 19-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 480 
SUJASHA MUKHERJI 
v. 
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA, 
THR. REGISTRAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2051 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 
c 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
Service Law -
Judicial Service -
Selection -
To the post of District Judge -
One of the 
candidates (appellant) obtained highest marks in 
0 written test comprising of 5 papers -
But on 
moderation of her marks in one of the papers from 
55% to 37%, she was disqualified from further 
consideration i.e. appearing in interview/ viva voce 
on the ground that she did not obtain minimum 
E marks of 40% in each paper -
Held: The 
fundamental predications have not been followed 
for moderation -
Instead of moderation, in fact a 
re-assessment of the answer-scripts of the appellant 
was done - Most of the candidates whose answer-
F scripts had been reassessed, the reduction of marks 
averages to 10 marks, hence deduction of 18 marks 
of the appellant was not justified - After deduction 
of 10 marks from 55 marks, the appellant would 
remain at second position in the merit list -
The 
G respondent-High Court directed to hold interview of 
the appellant. 
Natural Justice - Litigation challenging selection 
H 
480 
SUJASHA MUKHERJI v. HIGH COURT OF 
481 
CALCUTTA, THR. REGISTRAR 
process of the post of District Judge - Senior most A 
examiner (Judge of High Court) was the judge in 
the case -
Held: Such practice is alarmingly 
irregular and tantamount to being a judge in one's 
own cause -
It was imperative for the Judge to 
recuse himself from the adjudication -
Judicial B 
Propriety. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The senior-most Judge of the three c 
Judge/Examiners is the author of the impugned 
judgment. This is alarmingly irregular and 
tantamounts to being a Judge in one's own cause. 
It was, therefore, imperative for the Judge to 
recuse himself from the adjudication; and this o 
facet would ordinarily be sufficient to set aside 
the Impugned Judgment. However, keeping in 
perspective the gravity and urgency of the matters 
in issue, rather than remanding the dispute to the 
High Court, it is proper to proceed to decide the E 
dispute on its merits. [Para 6] [487-D-G] 
2.1 The keystone of the method of moderation 
postulates the existence of a Head Examiner who 
is usually the paper-setter also. In the present F 
case the respondents have neither asseverated 
nor established that a Head Examiner had been 
appointed. A multi person Committee of the High 
Court was entrusted with this fundamental duty 
and that in all probabilities this Committee G 
selected the questionnaire from the multitude of 
questions suggested for the subject. 
The 
fundamental predication of the paragraph 23(i) and 
(ii) of *Sanjay Singh case, therefore, does not 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A exist. No meeting was convened in which the 
examiners were present so as to discuss the 
substance of the questions and reach a consensus 
as regards suitable/model answers thereto. The 
keystone on which the structure of *Sanjay Singh 
B had been painstakingly constructed, has been 
removed with the result that the edifice has crumbled 
down. It is not logical for the basic features to be 
ignored and thereafter to follow other elements for 
that will become an 
incorrect extrapolation. 
C Furthermore, there is no justification for the junior-
most Judge/examiner to have been given the 
formidable task of moderation. [Para 8] [493-8-H] 
2.2 The avowed purpose behind moderation is to 
D "to achieve uniformity", to eradicate as far as 
possible the 'hawk-dove' effect. If mistaking in the 
valuation of answer-books are found to be rampant 
in the opinion of the Head Examiner, a fresh 
evaluation would have to be undertaken, since 
E moderation by definition cannot remove widespread 
mistakes. In the present case what has transpired in 
actuality is a fresh assessment and not a moderation 
of marks already awarded by an examiner. It appears 
F that sub-para (iii) of *Sanjay Singh case has been 
misconstrued and hence misapplied in the impugned 
judgment whilst it has been correctly applied by the 
Single Judge. [Para 8] [494-H; 495-A-B] 
2.3 So far as most of the candidates whose 
G answer scripts had been reassessed afresh, the 
reduction averages 10 marks which, therefore, 
constitutes the mean. Therefore, the deduction of as 
many as 18 marks so far as the appellant is 
H concerned 
is not logical or justified as 
a 
SUJASHA MU

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.